coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
10.  The applicant association, whose members are co-proprietors and inhabitants of a large housing project in Linz, has the aim of improving communication between the inhabitants inter alia by setting up an internal cable network. In proceedings brought in 1978 and terminated in 1986, it unsuccessfully applied for an operating licence.
11.  On 24 November 1993 the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria        (Series A no. 276), finding a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards inter alia the applicant's complaint that it had been unable to set up a television station due to the broadcasting monopoly of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation.
12.  On 18 August 1994 the applicant, referring to the above judgment, filed a new request for an operating licence with the Telecommunications Office for Upper Austria and Salzburg. On 3 May 1995 the latter dismissed the request noting that no legislation allowing it to grant such a licence had been passed as regards cable broadcasting. On 9 November 1995 the Federal Ministry of Public Economy and Transport dismissed the applicant's appeal.
13.  On 1 August 1996 the Constitutional Court's judgment of 27 September 1995 took effect, according to which private broadcasters were free to create and transmit their own programmes via cable-net without any conditions being attached.
14.  On 1 July 1997 the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act entered into force, which lays down the conditions under which private cable broadcasting is allowed.
10.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Vienna.
11.  On 7 July 1997 the weekly magazine “Profil” published an article about the applicant, who had been the manager of a company working in the field of financial consulting, and the criminal proceedings against him relating to charges of aggravated fraud.
12.  Thereupon, the applicant introduced proceedings for the publication of a reply under the Media Act.
13.  On 3 September 1997, after the Vienna Regional Criminal Court had rejected his first application for publication of a reply on formal grounds, the applicant, who was then imprisoned, drafted another request for the publication of a reply and handed it over to the prison administration on 4 September 1997 indicating that the “matter was subject to a time-limit”.
14.  The request was posted on 9 September 1997 and reached the publisher of “Profil” on the following day.
15.  On 13 November 1997 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court rejected the applicant's second application for publication of a reply, on the ground that his request had not reached the publisher on 7 September 1997 at the latest, i.e. within the statutory two-months time-limit which had started running with the publication of the article at issue.
16.  On 16 March 1998 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.
6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to M.P.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1985, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 24 September 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.
9.  On 9 July 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 4 August 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 September 1986.
11.  On 16 May 1987 and on 13 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
12.  Between 27 September 1986 and 6 February 1990, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 14 March 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 30 March 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 April 1990.
15.  Between 10 April 1990 and 16 September 1993, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 4 March 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
17.  On 14 May 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 May 1994.
18.  Between 19 May 1994 and 14 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  On 15 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.
6.  The applicant's father was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to M.G.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 March 1990, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 20 June 1990, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1991.
9.  On 17 October 1991, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 15 November 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 December 1991.
11.  Between 17 December 1991 and 17 February 1995, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. In the meantime, on 10 March 1992, the applicant's father died and the applicant inherited the apartment.
12.  On 6 December 1993 and 28 April 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughters.
13.  Between 28 April 1995 and 15 September 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 3 April 2000, the applicant recovered the apartment because the tenant vacated the premises spontaneously.
8.  The applicants live in Frankfurt, Germany.
9.  On 2 October 1939 the applicants' mother acquired title to a property in Bucharest composed of three flats. On 30 March 1948 she sold one of the flats to L.N. In 1975 she emigrated to Germany.
10.  On 18 September 1975 the State took possession of the property pursuant to Confiscation Decree no. 223/1974. The applicants' mother was never informed of the grounds or legal basis for that confiscation.
Action for recovery of possession
11.  On 27 July 1992 the applicants, as heirs, brought proceedings against Bucharest City Council and the managing company of State-owned housing, H., in the Court of First Instance of the first district of Bucharest to have the confiscation order against the property set aside. They argued that their mother had been the owner of the property and that the State had confiscated it pursuant to Confiscation Decree no. 223/1974, but that the deprivation of property had been unlawful because the administrative confiscation order had never been served on their mother. On 3 May 1994 the court delivered a judgement which was subsequently set aside by a decision of 19 April 1995 of the Bucharest County Court following a procedural flaw. The case was then remitted to the Court of First Instance.
12.  In a judgment of 28 January 1995 the court granted the claim on the ground that the administrative confiscation order in favour of the State had not satisfied the statutory formal conditions. Accordingly, it held that the State had not lawfully acquired title to the property and that the applicants were the lawful owners. The court ordered the confiscation order to be set aside and the property to be returned to the applicants.
13.  An appeal by Bucharest City Council was dismissed on 17 May 1996 by the Bucharest County Court on the same grounds as the Court of First Instance.
14.  The City Council appealed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In a judgment of 14 October 1996 the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants' action for recovery of possession. It found that the property in question had become State property pursuant to a valid legal title, namely the City Council's decision of 18 September 1975, and held that in order to secure its return or, if applicable, compensation, the applicants' only remedy was under the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 on the restitution of certain nationalised property.
15.  On 20 December 1996 the State sold one of the remaining two flats to the former tenant.
8.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Champagny-en-Vanoise (Savoie).
9.  On 30 September 1991 she signed a notarial deed by which she entered into a leasing arrangement with a limited company called SOFEBAIL for the renovation and furnishment of a holiday centre. She intended to run the business as a sole trader. As early as the end of 1991 she complained that the company had failed to complete the renovation works stipulated in the contract.
10.  On 13 June 1994 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the company for fraud, theft and fraudulent breach of trust and sought leave to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages.
11.  On 5 May 1997 the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings in an order worded as follows:
“It appears, in fact, from the evidence given by the civil parties and the head of SOFEBAIL and from the documents produced by the parties that the leasing arrangement, the mechanism of which has been described as fraudulent by the civil party, does not fall within the ambit of the criminal law. The disputes between [the applicant] and SOFEBAIL are clearly matters governed by civil or commercial law and have, moreover, given rise to various proceedings of this type in the civil or commercial courts.”
12.  On 7 May 1997 the applicant appealed against that order.
13.  On 10 July 1997 the Indictment Division of the Colmar Court of Appeal upheld the order in question. It found that the applicant's complaints were “manifestly dilatory” and that some of her allegations were “contradictory”, “purely gratuitous” or “entirely unsupported”.
14.  On 11 July 1997 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. Her appeal was heard on 24 September 1998. She was represented by counsel. Both parts of the reporting judge's report (the first containing a statement of the facts, the procedure and the grounds of appeal and the second a legal analysis of the case and an opinion on the merits of the appeal) had been sent to the advocate-general prior to the hearing. However, the applicant had not been sent a copy of both parts of the reporting judge's report. In a judgment of the same date the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the following grounds:
“The Court of Cassation is satisfied from the wording of the judgment appealed against that, in upholding the order discontinuing the proceedings, the Indictment Division, after examining all the facts alleged by the appellant and addressing the main arguments in her memorial, stated the reasons for its decision that there was insufficient evidence that anyone had committed the alleged offences of fraudulent breach of trust and fraud or any other offence.
None of the grounds of appeal, which amount to contesting the validity of the judges' findings of fact and of law, corresponds to any of the situations in which a civil party may appeal to the Court of Cassation, under Article 575 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against a judgment of an indictment division in the absence of an appeal by the prosecution ...”
...
8.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Milan.
9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to S.S.
10.  In a registered letter of 19 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 October 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 3 November 1988, which was made enforceable on 10 November 1988, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 September 1989.
13.  On 22 September 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 12 October 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 November 1989.
15.  Between 10 November 1989 and 18 June 1996, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession.
16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 26 June 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which it had let to L.L.D.L.
9.  In a registered letter of 20 November 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  On 5 June 1986, it served a notice to quit on the tenant, but she refused to leave.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 12 June 1986, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 30 June 1986, which was made enforceable on 20 November 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1987.
13.  On 17 March 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 9 June 1990 it served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 June 1990.
15.  Between 15 June 1990 and 25 September 1996 the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 6 May 1997, the applicant sold the apartment.
8.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1961 respectively and live in Prato.
9.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.P.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 June 1985, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 24 June 1985, which was made enforceable on 1 July 1985, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1987.
12.  On 29 September 1987, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 21 October 1987, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 1987.
14.  Between 27 November 1987 and 13 April 1989, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.
15.  On 29 May 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.
16.  Between 11 October 1989 and 13 February 1997, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 29 April 1997, the applicants repossessed the premises with the assistance of the police.
8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Naples.
9.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to R.T.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1988, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
11.  By a provisional decision of 20 January 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 January 1990 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case.
12.  On 22 February 1989, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. By a judgment of 14 April 1994, the court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1987 and confirmed the date of vacation indicated by the Magistrate. The judgment was made enforceable on 2 September 1994.
13.  On 1 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 21 April 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.
15.  Between 30 May 1995 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On an unspecified date in 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.
8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in S. Agnello, which they had let to A.M.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 January 1984, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 15 March 1984, the Magistrate refused to uphold the validity of the notice to quit, declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case and indicated that the Naples District Court had jurisdiction to hear it.
11.  On 26 March 1984, the applicants resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court.
12.  In a judgment of 22 June 1988, which was filed with the registry on 19 October 1988, the court allowed the applicants' claim and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1989.
13.  On 16 December 1988, the tenant appealed to the Naples Court of appeal.
14.  In a judgment of 17 October 1991, which was filed with the registry on 9 November 1991, the court rejected the appeal.
15.  On 5 February 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
16.  On 2 February 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1993.
17.  As from 15 March 1993 until 16 October 1997, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 16 October 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant is an Italian company having its registered seat in Milan.
9.  Mrs C. was the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to D.S.
10.  In a registered letter of 20 January 1987, she informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
11.  In a writ served on the heirs of the tenant, who had died in the meantime, on 25 February 1988, Mrs C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 24 March 1988, which was made enforceable on 29 March 1988, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 24 March 1989.
13.  On 25 July 1989, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.
14.  On 17 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the heirs, now tenants, requiring them to vacate the premises.
15.  On 5 October 1990, it served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 October 1990.
16.  Between 15 October 1990 and 15 October 1996, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions on the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  At the beginning of January 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment as the tenants had spontaneously vacated the premises.
8.  The applicant was born in 1913 and lives in Florence. She is the owner of three apartments in Florence, which she had let to P.U., C.G. and G.G.
1)  The proceedings against P.U.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 March 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 11 April 1990, which was made enforceable on 29 May 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1992.
11.  On 3 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 12 January 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.
13.  Between 19 February 1993 and 23 February 1996, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.
2)  The proceedings against C.G.
15.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
16.  By a decision of 7 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 23 March 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 October 1991.
17.  On 12 October 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
18.  On 21 November 1991, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 January 1992.
19.  Between 15 January 1992 and 28 May 1996, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
20.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.
3)  The proceedings against G.G.
21.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
22.  By a decision of 8 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 27 April 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 January 1993.
23.  On 3 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
24.  On 12 January 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.
25.  Between 19 February 1993 and 16 January 1996, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
26.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.